Prove Cauchy Sequence Convergence: {p_n} \rightarrow p

  • Thread starter Thread starter mynameisfunk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cauchy Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving the convergence of a Cauchy sequence, specifically showing that if a subsequence converges to a limit, then the entire sequence must also converge to that limit.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the triangle inequality in the context of convergence and question the implications of using a non-strict inequality in their reasoning.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on the necessity of strict inequalities in the context of convergence definitions. There appears to be an ongoing exploration of the implications of the original poster's reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Participants are examining the definitions and properties of Cauchy sequences and convergence, with a focus on the nuances of inequalities in mathematical proofs.

mynameisfunk
Messages
122
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose that {[tex]p_n[/tex]} is a Cauchy sequence and that there is a subsquence {[tex]p_{n_i}[/tex]} and a number [tex]p[/tex] such that [tex]p_{n_i} \rightarrow p[/tex]. Show that the full sequence converges, too; that is [tex]p_n \rightarrow p[/tex].


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Take [tex]\varepsilon > 0[/tex]. take [tex]N[/tex] s.t. [tex]n_k,n > N[/tex] implies that [tex]d(p_{n_k},p)< \frac{\varepsilon}{2}, d(p_n,p_{n_k}) < \frac{\varepsilon}{2}[/tex]. Hence [tex]d(p_n,p) \leq d(p_{n_k},p)+d(p_{n_k},p_n) \leq \varepsilon[/tex] Thus {[tex]p_n[/tex]} converges to [tex]p[/tex].
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, [tex]d(p_n,p) \leq d(p_{n_k},p)+d(p_{n_k},p_n) < \varepsilon[/tex].
 
isnt that what i wrote?
 
Is the only thing i need to fix the scrictly less than inequality??
 
mynameisfunk said:
Is the only thing i need to fix the scrictly less than inequality??

Yes. Without strictly less, you're not consistent with the definition of convergence.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K